Disparities in Knowledge Employees’ Actual, Contractual, and Desired Working Schedules

Our study on a sample of Estonian creative knowledge employees indicates considerable disparities between their actual, contractually agreed, and desired amounts of working time. Nearly two thirds of the employees studied exhibited a mismatch between their desired and contractual working schedules, reflecting the constraints that employment contracts set on preferred working time. Our study results reveal that even if the employees had access to flexible working time options, a majority of them still followed roughly the standard nine-to-five working schedule even though their desired timing of work may have been different. This may be driven by various social norms and family commitments that warrant further study. The actual duration of the working day is longer than contractually agreed for 90 percent of the employees studied, which may pose health risks to employees. Our ordinary least squares (OLS) regression estimates show that the more educated the employee is, the less overtime work they did, while the higher their salary level, the more hours of overtime the employee did. The OLS regression estimates for the time difference between the actual start and the contractual start of the working day show that women tended to start their working day later and men earlier than officially required. Interestingly, the larger the family the employee had, the more the actual start time of work shifted to being earlier than contractually required. The older the employee, the later the start of their working day was from the official schedule. Our study highlights potentially large inefficiencies in industrial relations and in the use of the potential of employees in creative knowledge work that may have considerable adverse effects on the financial results of companies and on socio-economic development in general.

Institutional Guardianship: How Leaders in Nonprofit Academic Organizations Resolve Ethical Dilemmas in their Work

Leaders in nonprofit organizations, such as colleges and universities, are often tasked with ethical burdens. Yet, little is known about what these issues are and how academic leaders approach the ethical dimensions of their work. Through a pilot study involving in-depth interviews with thirteen deans at private, nonprofit liberal arts colleges in the US, this article documents a “guardianship framework” as a method by which higher education leaders serve the “best interests of the institution.” The article argues that this guardianship framework serves as a prism through which organizational life is experienced, and impacts how ethical decisions are identified and resolved. Previous research on ethical decision-making in organizations has focused primarily on business rather than on mission-based organizations. The surprisingly strong effect of a “guardianship framework” to decision-making adds to our understanding of how those who work in nonprofit, mission-based organizations, such as colleges and universities, employ a notion of ethics to their work.

Engaging Millennials: Leadership of the Global Millennial Generation in the Workplace

While exploration within popular media outlets, industry publications, and among a growing academic literature on the topic of managing and leading the Millennial generation is on the rise, there is a major gap emerging—while popular media and industry experts continue to insist on a large generational gap in the workplace—academic research suggests there is no huge comparative difference from one generation to the next in how individuals prefer to be led or to lead. Continued academic research in this area is needed as the Millennial Generation increasingly takes its place in the workforce and there is sufficient lag time for there to be more thorough and rigorous longitudinal studies. This project explores best employee engagement practices in leading the upcoming millennial generation in the workplaces. In addition, this paper provides a proposed framework for building off of the existing industry research and growing body of academic studies to explore if there are any significant differences and similarities between major generational cohorts (Baby Boomers, GenX, and Millennials) with regards to how they like to lead and how they like to be led.